[CallMeIshmael]

A conspiracy theoriests’ reverie…

the chasis of the flight recorder – found empty!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13218021

Could Lugano have called it correctly – this being the lead into a potential French coverup?

[pomerol]

Latest report from the French BEA on the FA447 A330 accident.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/05/17/356793/initial-af447-evidence-does-not-require-operator-action.html

[LuganoPirate]

“Airbus declines to comment on the document. French investigation agency Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses – which would have approved the release of the telex – has cautioned against speculation over the crash, stating that any conclusions not validated by its investigators are “null and void””

It’s the last part of that statement that worries me. Why should it be the French only, who can validate the findings. What if something is found with which the Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses disagrees, but is vital and perhaps contributory. It means we may not get to hear about it?

[pomerol]

LuganoPirate

I may be wrong and will stand corrected, but my understanding is that whilst the BEA investigate the accident, the overall authority is the Gendarmerie, this causes a conflict of interest, one the BEA looking for the cause, two the Gendarmerie looking for who to blame and prosecute.

[AdrianHenryAsia]

Latest update released today:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/skyworldnews-14898227/air-france-crash-recording-revealed-25368009.html

[pomerol]

Loyal_BA

If correct, classic symptom of pitot problem?

[Swissdiver]

Well, imv it seems obvious we are facing here a plane issue. Two different speed indications were given. And the electronics seems to have become weird… Since Airbus commands are only electronic (planes are flown with a joystick – http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/a330/a3301.html), an electronic failure can lead to such a disaster…

For me this is how a flight deck should look like: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing777/boeing7775.html. So, yes, I avoid as much as I can these horrible A330s and A340s…

[craigwatson]

rubbish!

it SEEMS what they were facing was a pitot problem, absolutely no fault of Airbus, they didnt design the pitot tubes.

What do you mean ” the electronics seems to have become weird”?

Yes, Airbus aircraft are flown with a sidestick, there is still a manual link between this and the aircraft flight surfaces, so ALL electronics and power could be lost and the plane would still be controllable.

Even with the inconsistent speed readings the flight should not have gone down, what to me is the most curious thing is that during 2 different stall alerts the PF commanded nose up, which goes agaisnt everything he would ever have been taught.

And the new B787 is even more reliant on automation than airbus aircraft, although it has a conventional yoke.

[LuganoPirate]

I have to agree with you Craig, the Airbus is a great plane and I think the fault lay with the Pitot tubes, not the plane itself. The trouble is we do not yet know all the reasons. I cannot believe a trained pilot would command nose up during a stall, but he must have had a reason, perceived or not, to do that.

I think being in the warm comfort of our living rooms as we speculate on what happened is vastly different to the pressure those guys were under during a few brief minutes of extreme storm activity, sudden icing, at night, with no visual references.

We will have to wait for the ACI investigators to do their work which I’m sure will be diligent and eventually will find out what happened so lessons can be learnt . I just hope the French Government does not try to keep any of the findings secret.

I have to admit to thinking about a cover-up at first, as per my earlier posts, but speaking to some pilot friends, they think there will be no cover-up, since in this day and age it is very hard to keep these things secret and the French need to demonstrate a full investigation, if not people really will put doubt in Airbus and this will do the French no good at all.

[Swissdiver]

@craigwatson

Right. Reliable planes always indicate two different speeds…

[pomerol]

Swissdiver

I would respecfully suggest that the two different speeds being indicated, are the result of a faulty pitot head.

[Swissdiver]

@Pomerol:

“For a period of less than a minute, speeds displayed on the left primary flight display were inconsistent with those on the integrated standby instrument system, the BEA found.”

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13572569

[pomerol]

Swissdiver

I see nothing inconsistant in the report you have quoted, or my statements.

[craigwatson]

swiss- all three speeds, left, right, and standby use seperate pitot tubes, so if one ices up the others may work fine, or two may ice up and the third may be fine, lots of combinations there. Ground speed is displayed and is taken from GPS, thats a good benchmark for a gross error check.

when in a unreliable speed indication, set an engine (N1) level and pitch attitude (usually 2.5 nose up).

I could dig up reports of frozen pitot tubes causing unreliable speed indications on just about every aircraft make out there

[MarcusUK]

I recall in The Times in the weeks after, and subsequent documentaries analysing, that the pitot tubes were thought to be the fault back then.

What seems to have been lost now, is that Airbus advised Air France to replace these 2 years before, highlighting possible problems, but they failed to do so. Pilots had also been reporting faults

Air France replaced all Pitot tubes on their planes within 3 days of the accident it was reported. A little late?

Will be interesting where liability falls in a legal sense, and how the jurisdictions of territory matter, as in the geographical location, and France.

It goes beyond words, to express what those on board experienced and went through.

Clearly, for all concerned, and safety in the future, the liability must be clarified to rest with one party or another. It seems this would be with Air France?

[Author]

Posts